YourFriendNoo t1_ituyhyw wrote
Always remember studies found it was cheaper for taxpayers to house the unhomed than it was to provide services for the unhoused population.
Homelessness is the more expensive option for society.
In the US, we maintain a large homeless population as a threat to the working class, that should they ever stop being productive, they will be discarded.
Hating the homeless is part of capitalist propoganda, as the worst thing for capitalism is people that aren't productive enough.
Ohjay1982 t1_itveuu7 wrote
It’s kind of funny, same thing with crime. Many people support heavy handed punishment for criminals yet don’t want to provide poverty social services that would reduce the need for criminal activity. In Canada the average price for a year of incarceration is upwards of 40k per year. If you had provided even 25k in assistance to that person there is a high likely-hood that many of the the “criminals” wouldn’t have had to resort to crime in the first place.
Facist_Canadian t1_itvgyd0 wrote
You mean like welfare, medicaid, section 8 housing, and more?
Ohjay1982 t1_itvi25i wrote
Yes, the same people that complain about crime will also complain that we spend too much on services like those and think people should make it on their own like they supposedly did. There is a significant population of people that would outright cut those programs not realizing how big of an effect they have.
hawkwings t1_itvbamg wrote
If you offer free housing, a bunch of non-homeless people will apply for it. Many adults live with their parents. If you bought a farm and built a giant apartment complex, they would have homes, but they would be away from support services and jobs. Increasing the population of the exurbs increases the need for roads.
Many people don't despise the homeless; they just want them someplace else. I think that we need to reduce immigration -- both legal and illegal. If you build enough houses for everyone and stop population growth, then you can solve the housing shortage issue. If you increase the population, you have to build both more houses and more roads.
limeyhoney t1_itv4eu2 wrote
So you can plop homeless people into a home. Now they aren’t homeless. Does that solve the issue they have? Will they be able to maintain that home?
fhjuyrc t1_itv6xzu wrote
I’m going to speculate that a system which houses the homeless will also have good mental health care, reintegration services, and social assistance for its people.
Otherwise we’d be guilty of argumentum ad absurdam, aka leaping to the worst-case scenario.
WafflesRearEnd t1_itvg7nu wrote
When I was homeless 5 years ago, finding a home was absolutely step one. After I had somewhere to keep what few belongings I had and to shower, and keep food without risk of spoiling, I could focus on step 2. Next I was able to use my address to get a job and get into outpatient rehab for my poly addiction. Without having to spend every dollar on heroin and meth while I held down a job I was able to save for my own place which took about 4 months for me. It’s was a very rough road but getting rent free housing for awhile was crucial to allow me to get my life back. The house alone didn’t solve all my problems but I wouldn’t have been successful without it.
iamwizzerd t1_itv8t0m wrote
Ye seems to work well in finland
smashin_blumpkin t1_itvhbnb wrote
The fact that it works in one place doesn't mean it will work in a different place
grilledscheese t1_itvbys7 wrote
it is called housing first, the idea is that a home is the anchor they need for all the other help to stick, and it drastically reduces the cost of providing services to them overall
TonnelSneksRool t1_itvclrt wrote
Considering the primary issue of homelessness is just that -- homelessness, yes it would solve that problem. Why are we asking if they can naintain that home when we don't ask that of the currently housed? Maybe if we let go of this rat race of capitalism we're all in, we could move to help folks (of all social classes) with honemaking.
LareMare t1_itviszk wrote
That's the first step, and from there you can help them with getting their life back on track.
hishiron_ t1_itvgheg wrote
No idea if you're right or wrong but you sound like a lunatic
YourFriendNoo t1_itvhz2i wrote
Maintaining a homeless population IS more expensive.
If it's not saving money to leave people on the streets instead of house them, you tell me why we're doing it.
We are paying EXTRA to keep people homeless. There's got to be some reason.
Seattleisonfire t1_itvhfn3 wrote
>Always remember studies found it was cheaper for taxpayers to house the unhomed than it was to provide services for the unhoused population.
You think you can just unconditionally give a homeless junkie a house (which they will destroy) and they won't need any services? Get real.
It's a lot cheaper to offer them shelter than a home. Even a jail cell costs a fraction of a home, they get fed, and it removes them from society so we don't continue to get victimized by their bullshit. In California it's costing somewhere around $700K to $800K to give these derelicts a home. You really think that's a good use of our money?
YourFriendNoo t1_itvor95 wrote
>You think you can just unconditionally give a homeless junkie a house (which they will destroy) and they won't need any services? Get real.
No one thinks this.
>It's a lot cheaper to offer them shelter than a home.
Duh. We don't need to buy them single-family homes. We need to house them.
>Even a jail cell costs a fraction of a home, they get fed, and it removes them from society so we don't continue to get victimized by their bullshit.
Dear fuck, do you really think we need to imprison everyone who loses their primary residence?!
>In California it's costing somewhere around $700K to $800K to give these derelicts a home. You really think that's a good use of our money?
While I get that you made this up to imply someone suggested buying them all houses (which no one did), the fact that you think all people without housing are derelicts really says it all anyway.
Seattleisonfire t1_itvxt3u wrote
Well that's what you said:
"Always remember studies found it was cheaper for taxpayers to house the unhomed than it was to provide services for the unhoused population."
Meanwhile, I did NOT say that we need to imprison all of them, or that all homeless are derelicts. I think you know the population I'm talking about here. (Hint: it's not single moms fleeing DV or someone who just lost their job and suddenly can't pay rent.)
And since you claim I "made it up" about California...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments